Soo...unless Marquette can compete with $20M payrolls at Kentucky, and $400 Million Dollar donations to its athletic department, maybe it's possible the RGV model is really our only way to compete going forward? From the Athletic:
Michigan State University secured a $401 million commitment from Greg and Dawn Williams, with $290 million earmarked for the athletic department. The donation is the largest in school history, eclipsing the previous record of $32 million from Phoenix Suns owner Mat Ishbia.
The $401 million donation consists of $290 million to Spartan athletics, $100 million to Spartan Ventures — a tax-exempt nonprofit created to bolster athletic department fundraising — and $11 million toward academic and extracurricular initiatives.
At a press conference Friday, Greg Williams, the co-founder and CEO of financial technology and insurance brokerage company Acrisure, offered a message to university stakeholders. "Set your expectations extremely high," he said, "because the support that you need to achieve what you want to achieve, you have it." Williams did not attend MSU, but he grew up rooting for the Spartans in nearby Laingsburg, Mich., and has become close friends with men's basketball coach Tom Izzo.
.
The $290 million dedicated to sports marks a strong beginning to the athletic department's $1 billion fundraising campaign, which the school unveiled earlier this week with a promotional video introduced by Spartans all-time great and Lansing native Magic Johnson.
The donation arrives as Michigan State adapts to the capital requirements of modern college athletics, particularly football. Athletic director J Batt dismissed coach Jonathan Smith on Sunday, which means the university will buy out the remaining years on Smith's guaranteed contract for roughly $33 million. The same day, the school announced the hiring of Pat Fitzgerald, the former Northwestern football coach, as Smith's replacement. Fitzgerald signed an incentive-laden, five-year deal with approximately $30 million guaranteed.
Izzo praised the magnitude of the Williamses' donation. "The DNA is to win championships," Izzo said. "The DNA is to be the best we possibly can be. The commitment you made today will certainly propel all of us towards the next championship."
The donation to Michigan State caps a year in which several major universities have reported historic sports-related cash infusions.
The University of Kansas received a $300 million donation in August from alumnus David G. Booth — the largest gift in KU's history. The school plans to direct $75 million of that toward the renovation of David Booth Kansas Memorial Stadium and the development of a retail and hospitality district around the stadium. At the University of Illinois, alumnus Larry Gies announced a $100 million gift in September to support the school's athletics endeavors. And on the West Coast, Stanford's football program accepted $50 million from former player Bradford M. Freeman.
The increasing frequency and value of these megadonor gifts speak to the massive budgets NCAA Division I athletic departments require to compensate athletes and coaches in the NIL era.
I love this brand new phenomenon where Marquette can no longer compete with the blue bloods like Michigan state, duke and Kentucky on the recruiting front.
Not impressed.
A $400M gift to the HBCUs would impress me.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 09, 2025, 02:52:20 PMSoo...unless Marquette can compete with $20M payrolls at Kentucky, and $400 Million Dollar donations to its athletic department, maybe it's possible the RGV model is really our only way to compete going forward?
You call this competing?
So, maybe we need to do the best we can recruiting both in portal and out of HS and hope dysfunction, early draft, etc. hits the big donor schools.
Has anything really changed with going up against the big $$ donor schools over the years?
I don't recall Marquette *ever* winning a recruiting battle against Duke, MSU, or Kentucky. Heck, I don't think we've ever even beaten out Louisville.
No one is asking Shaka and Marquette to spend $5 million on AJ Dybantsa. But to maybe fork it over for that one missing piece that could help us win a championship, or plugging a couple holes with guys who could help us avoid having a disastrous season like the one this is shaping up to be? Yeah, I think the program could probably manage that.
Will MU's player payroll be in the top 25? Can it be with MU's current resources?
Quote from: Biggie Clausen on December 09, 2025, 04:17:09 PMI don't recall Marquette *ever* winning a recruiting battle against Duke, MSU, or Kentucky.
Henry Ellenson chose Marquette over Michigan State and Kentucky.
Joey Hauser chose Marquette over Michigan State, with Kansas showing interest late.
Dawson Garcia chose Marquette over Indiana.
Quote from: MU82 on December 09, 2025, 05:05:42 PMHenry Ellenson chose Marquette over Michigan State and Kentucky.
Joey Hauser chose Marquette over Michigan State, with Kansas showing interest late.
Dawson Garcia chose Marquette over Indiana.
So what you're saying is that Wojo was an elite recruiter.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 05:21:29 PMSo what you're saying is that Wojo was an elite recruiter.
He wasn't a bad recruiter, that's for sure.
The recruiting game obviously has changed, and we might never know how he'd do in this environment.
Maybe MU needs to go the route Utah is going. RIP to college sports.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/2025/12/09/university-utah-nears-private/
Utah's Board of Trustees has ratified a "nine-figure" private equity deal with Otro Capital that calls for the creation of Utah Brands & Entertainment, a company to oversee the athletic department's revenue-generating sources. Otro will take a minority ownership stake in Utah Brands, and hold two board seats, with the university's Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation to hold four seats as AD Mark Harlan serves as chair. An additional supporter/investor will sit in the seventh board position. University officials have declined to say how much Otro Capital plans to initially invest because the deal has not been finalized but it is expected to be completed by early 2026. Yahoo's Ross Dellenger adds: "The project includes a fascinating wrinkle. The university is offering a prominent group of donors the ability to purchase a stake in Utah Brands & Entertainment. ... An exit strategy — in five to seven years — exists, and the university holds the right to purchase Otro's ownership stake." More. (link, link)
Utah President Taylor Randall and AD Mark Harlan released a statement regarding today's announcement of the Utes' private equity deal with Otro Capital that reads in part: "This new model will enhance operations of key commercial activities and generate a significant influx of funding for Utah Athletics. It will also help enhance the gameday experience for our incredibly passionate fans. Ultimately, it will improve the student-athlete experience, strengthen our programs and ensure Utah Athletics can continue to thrive and compete for conference and national championships–now and into the future. Most importantly, this transition will allow more of the university's internal resources to remain focused on education (scholarships, access and student success), cutting-edge research and exceptional patient care. By modernizing our athletics model, we are protecting and strengthening our ability to advance our academic mission and deliver societal impact over the long term." (link, link - resolution, link - slide deck)
Elon - I don't think anyone expects MU to get a 400 million dollar donation anytime soon... but let's not just throw our hands up and ( basically ) quit either.
Apparently* Dooney Johnson is getting
high six figures from Gonzaga. And ..
( again ) allegedly at that point MU couldn't compete.
If that's true, then MU has given up on being a top 25 ish team. High six figures is probably the going rate for a kid of his caliber. Unbelievable and sad, but true.
And ... as many have said, how bout Shaka drops the RGV crap and is willing to sign a few extra guys to help the team:
A " 3 and D " guy to replace OMAX
Any shooter(s) in the past few years, etc etc.
The players on any D1 team have been playing competitive hoops since 4th or 5th grade. If Owens ( for example ) wants to play more - then get better.
Sheez
Quote from: Mu8891 on December 09, 2025, 06:41:34 PMApparently* Dooney Johnson is getting
high six figures from Gonzaga. And ..
( again ) allegedly at that point MU couldn't compete.
If that's true, then MU has given up on being a top 25 ish team. High six figures is probably the going rate for a kid of his caliber. Unbelievable and sad, but true.
What makes all this more difficult is the lack of transparency. "Apparently", "if that's true", etc.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 09, 2025, 06:02:54 PMMaybe MU needs to go the route Utah is going. RIP to college sports.
https://www.sltrib.com/sports/utah-utes/2025/12/09/university-utah-nears-private/
Utah's Board of Trustees has ratified a "nine-figure" private equity deal with Otro Capital that calls for the creation of Utah Brands & Entertainment, a company to oversee the athletic department's revenue-generating sources. Otro will take a minority ownership stake in Utah Brands, and hold two board seats, with the university's Utah Growth Capital Partners Foundation to hold four seats as AD Mark Harlan serves as chair. An additional supporter/investor will sit in the seventh board position. University officials have declined to say how much Otro Capital plans to initially invest because the deal has not been finalized but it is expected to be completed by early 2026. Yahoo's Ross Dellenger adds: "The project includes a fascinating wrinkle. The university is offering a prominent group of donors the ability to purchase a stake in Utah Brands & Entertainment. ... An exit strategy — in five to seven years — exists, and the university holds the right to purchase Otro's ownership stake." More. (link, link)
Utah President Taylor Randall and AD Mark Harlan released a statement regarding today's announcement of the Utes' private equity deal with Otro Capital that reads in part: "This new model will enhance operations of key commercial activities and generate a significant influx of funding for Utah Athletics. It will also help enhance the gameday experience for our incredibly passionate fans. Ultimately, it will improve the student-athlete experience, strengthen our programs and ensure Utah Athletics can continue to thrive and compete for conference and national championships–now and into the future. Most importantly, this transition will allow more of the university's internal resources to remain focused on education (scholarships, access and student success), cutting-edge research and exceptional patient care. By modernizing our athletics model, we are protecting and strengthening our ability to advance our academic mission and deliver societal impact over the long term." (link, link - resolution, link - slide deck)
Four years ago I was told that I was crazy when I predicted this trend.
I know, its just a minority stake and I'm crazy to think they will ever gain a majority position. We'll talk again in four year.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 03:41:12 PMYou call this competing?
I suspect if MU had someone come in with, hell, just a $100 million dollar donation for Men's Basketball, you may see a different approach. In the linked article Kansas got a $300 million donation, Illinois a $100M donation.
You can fantasize all you want and think MU has a bunch of mega wealthy alums that care about basketball, but the truth is as compared to Power 4 schools - yeah, not so much.
So, what we can do is brand ourselves as a place where you won't get recruited over, we will invest in you, and give you time to develop as a player and person. As the recruits quality increases (and it has with Nigel, Adrien, Sheek, Egbouno), maybe you can compete with Power 4 schools with payrolls of $20M and big time donors of $100M+.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 09, 2025, 07:00:52 PMI suspect if MU had someone come in with, hell, just a $100 million dollar donation for Men's Basketball, you may see a different approach. In the linked article Kansas got a $300 million donation, Illinois a $100M donation.
You can fantasize all you want and think MU has a bunch of mega wealthy alums that care about basketball, but the truth is as compared to Power 4 schools - yeah, not so much.
So, what we can do is brand ourselves as a place where you won't get recruited over, we will invest in you, and give you time to develop as a player and person. As the recruits quality increases (and it has with Nigel, Adrien, Sheek, Egbouno), maybe you can compete with Power 4 schools with payrolls of $20M and big time donors of $100M+.
Honestly, I think I would question the smarts of a player who is willing to take 50 cents on the dollar to play for Marquette. MU and Shaka have to figure this out.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 09, 2025, 07:13:14 PMHonestly, I think I would question the smarts of a player who is willing to take 50 cents on the dollar to play for Marquette. MU and Shaka have to figure this out.
I get your point, yet not all Top 100 kids "hit" their first year or two as players - Oso didn't. So, you cut a kid like that, and what is his earning potential at the next school after he flames out as a freshman and/or sophomore? On the present roster, you could point to Tre Norman - think he would have earned more from whatever school he would have landed at if Marquette "cut" him after last season? But instead he at least gets to earn some cash at MU and we can uphold a degree of our brand and strategy and point to that while recruiting.
Some* parents may value our way, versus simply the highest bidder. But, no doubt, the landscape of college basketball has shifted massively in the last 4 years.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 09, 2025, 07:00:52 PMI suspect if MU had someone come in with, hell, just a $100 million dollar donation for Men's Basketball, you may see a different approach. In the linked article Kansas got a $300 million donation, Illinois a $100M donation.
You can fantasize all you want and think MU has a bunch of mega wealthy alums that care about basketball, but the truth is as compared to Power 4 schools - yeah, not so much.
So, what we can do is brand ourselves as a place where you won't get recruited over, we will invest in you, and give you time to develop as a player and person. As the recruits quality increases (and it has with Nigel, Adrien, Sheek, Egbouno), maybe you can compete with Power 4 schools with payrolls of $20M and big time donors of $100M+.
I think you've got some inaccurate/misleading info baked into this argument here.
These huge donations you're citing aren't a "go buy basketball players" slush fund. The Kansas money, for example, is primarily to pay for football stadium improvements and related facilities enhancements. Of the Michigan State donation, much of it is going to football, with other sports divvying up the rest. The $100 million to Illinois is going almost exclusively to football.
Which leads to the next point ... most of this donation/NIL arms race is all about football. And that's not an arms race Marquette needs to be a part of. MU doesn't need a $400 million donation, or $100 donation, to be competitive at basketball. Marquette actually has an advantage in that it doesn't have divided loyalties among its alumni and donor base. We don't need to support a hockey program (check out with MSU is paying these days for that) or a football team or a baseball team. It's men's basketball and pretty much only men's basketball (sorry, women's hoopers). Yes, we have a smaller base to fundraise from than some of these big state schools, but we also need far less money and have fewer programs to divide that money amongst.
And yes, MU does need money, but there's really no excuse not to be able to go get it. Our basketball program matches and surpasses some of the biggest schools in the country in attendance, we have an extremely loyal and engaged fan base and our alumni/graduates aren't a bunch of paupers. Beyond that, we're one of only three major sports teams in a top 40 media market (sorry, UWM) with a significant commercial/corporate base. The money is out there if MU can go get it! And if Marquette can't go get it, the way other schools across the country are, that's a Marquette problem, not an NIL/college sports problem, and the university needs to put better people in charge.
Look, nobody is suggesting Marquette will, or can, have a $20 million roster. But the reality is we've never competed on an equal field in terms of resources with programs like Kentucky or UNC or Kansas. And we're not going to now. But there's no reason Marquette can't maintain a successful, top 25 basketball program.
It feels very much that you're just trying to find a rationalization/justification for slavish devotion to a strategy that isn't working right now.
Asking for a friend - how much would it cost to "not suck?"
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 09, 2025, 07:13:14 PMHonestly, I think I would question the smarts of a player who is willing to take 50 cents on the dollar to play for Marquette. MU and Shaka have to figure this out.
There's two sides to every coin. Say a kid gets a big NIL deal and he has a few bad games. He gets some pressure on the twitter and starts tanking hard. His money is gone next year and he's banished to DIII.
On the Marquette model you avoid the lightning in a bottle kid who is going to basically use Marquette until a true blue blood comes along or go to the NBA. Shaka is trying to have a stable roster with good timing across scholarship classes. Does that model look great right now? Sure doesn't. But this is a long term strategy. There is going to be growing pains. Is the RGV thing tacky? Sure it is. But look at the mission statement of Marquette. The BOT are focused on a balanced team. NO headlines in the Chicago Tribune about rape. Remember Buzz and the sexual assaults? You don't get a chance to really vet a player, meet his family, do the homework on the character of a player. If Winning was everything you get into the portal. If building a winning culture was everything you start at home and double down on development. Kids who come from families that value being a balanced and good human being will continue to choose Marquette. The trick is that they need to be 40% from the three point line.
Quote from: SonOfWarrior on December 09, 2025, 08:45:41 PMThere's two sides to every coin. Say a kid gets a big NIL deal and he has a few bad games. He gets some pressure on the twitter and starts tanking hard. His money is gone next year and he's banished to DIII.
On the Marquette model you avoid the lightning in a bottle kid who is going to basically use Marquette until a true blue blood comes along or go to the NBA. Shaka is trying to have a stable roster with good timing across scholarship classes. Does that model look great right now? Sure doesn't. But this is a long term strategy. There is going to be growing pains. Is the RGV thing tacky? Sure it is. But look at the mission statement of Marquette. The BOT are focused on a balanced team. NO headlines in the Chicago Tribune about rape. Remember Buzz and the sexual assaults? You don't get a chance to really vet a player, meet his family, do the homework on the character of a player. If Winning was everything you get into the portal. If building a winning culture was everything you start at home and double down on development. Kids who come from families that value being a balanced and good human being will continue to choose Marquette. The trick is that they need to be 40% from the three point line.
What I get from this is transfer students are criminals
Quote from: panda on December 09, 2025, 09:01:30 PMWhat I get from this is transfer students are criminals
And Shaka's recruits are looking for a guaranteed paycheck.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 09, 2025, 02:52:20 PMSoo...unless Marquette can compete with $20M payrolls at Kentucky, and $400 Million Dollar donations to its athletic department, maybe it's possible the RGV model is really our only way to compete going forward?
The RGV model is possibly our only real way to compete?!?
#Shaka Slurper
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 08:27:19 PMI think you've got some inaccurate/misleading info baked into this argument here.
These huge donations you're citing aren't a "go buy basketball players" slush fund. The Kansas money, for example, is primarily to pay for football stadium improvements and related facilities enhancements. Of the Michigan State donation, much of it is going to football, with other sports divvying up the rest. The $100 million to Illinois is going almost exclusively to football.
Which leads to the next point ... most of this donation/NIL arms race is all about football. And that's not an arms race Marquette needs to be a part of. MU doesn't need a $400 million donation, or $100 donation, to be competitive at basketball. Marquette actually has an advantage in that it doesn't have divided loyalties among its alumni and donor base. We don't need to support a hockey program (check out with MSU is paying these days for that) or a football team or a baseball team. It's men's basketball and pretty much only men's basketball (sorry, women's hoopers). Yes, we have a smaller base to fundraise from than some of these big state schools, but we also need far less money and have fewer programs to divide that money amongst.
And yes, MU does need money, but there's really no excuse not to be able to go get it. Our basketball program matches and surpasses some of the biggest schools in the country in attendance, we have an extremely loyal and engaged fan base and our alumni/graduates aren't a bunch of paupers. Beyond that, we're one of only three major sports teams in a top 40 media market (sorry, UWM) with a significant commercial/corporate base. The money is out there if MU can go get it! And if Marquette can't go get it, the way other schools across the country are, that's a Marquette problem, not an NIL/college sports problem, and the university needs to put better people in charge.
Look, nobody is suggesting Marquette will, or can, have a $20 million roster. But the reality is we've never competed on an equal field in terms of resources with programs like Kentucky or UNC or Kansas. And we're not going to now. But there's no reason Marquette can't maintain a successful, top 25 basketball program.
It feels very much that you're just trying to find a rationalization/justification for slavish devotion to a strategy that isn't working right now.
Can MU compete with BYU? The LDS is loaded. Can we expect that 25 schools will have higher payrolls than MU?
Just my opinion but I feel like some fans:
1. underestimate the financial resources of MU.
2. underestimate the competitive nature of MU players.
3. think that 'no transfers' is the hill Shaka will die on.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 09, 2025, 09:47:37 PMCan MU compete with BYU? The LDS is loaded. Can we expect that 25 schools will have higher payrolls than MU?
Apparently we can't even compete in the top 100.
Meanwhile MSU is mandating a 9% across the board cut for academics, with significant layoffs, pauses to graduate programs, and cuts in research funding.
$153M of that $401M would have been enough to not need any budget cuts at all.
Quote from: MU82 on December 09, 2025, 05:05:42 PMHenry Ellenson chose Marquette over Michigan State and Kentucky.
Joey Hauser chose Marquette over Michigan State, with Kansas showing interest late.
Dawson Garcia chose Marquette over Indiana.
True, although Henry and Joey already had brothers in the program at Marquette, so I'd argue they were special cases. Then again, I forgot that Greg Elliott - at least according to some Scoopers - was Izzo's top target in that year's recruiting class, and possibly - again, according to some Scoopers at that time - the most coveted recruit of Izzo's entire career. That's just how it was in the Wojo era.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 09, 2025, 09:47:37 PMCan MU compete with BYU? The LDS is loaded. Can we expect that 25 schools will have higher payrolls than MU?
The LDS isn't funding BYU athletics any more than the Vatican funds Marquette athletics.
Quote from: forgetful on December 09, 2025, 09:54:55 PMMeanwhile MSU is mandating a 9% across the board cut for academics, with significant layoffs, pauses to graduate programs, and cuts in research funding.
$153M of that $401M would have been enough to not need any budget cuts at all.
They better not cut the budget for criminal defense attorneys.
Quote from: WhiteTrash on December 09, 2025, 09:50:05 PMJust my opinion but I feel like some fans:
1. underestimate the financial resources of MU.
2. underestimate the competitive nature of MU players.
3. think that 'no transfers' is the hill Shaka will die on.
It is very hard to watch this and think he'll use the portal.
https://youtu.be/rt5IdhD3SRQ?si=0EQEaBFzhr1e7BgP
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 10:00:54 PMThe LDS isn't funding BYU athletics any more than the Vatican funds Marquette athletics.
AJ Dybantsa has a $7 million dollar nil deal. Can MU compete? Everyone seems fine with MU not being able to compete with Duke, UK, KU, etc. I doubt they can compete with BYU. I'm trying to figure out the reasonable expectations for MU in the New World.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 09, 2025, 11:19:17 PMAJ Dybantsa has a $7 million dollar nil deal. Can MU compete? Everyone seems fine with MU not being able to compete with Duke, UK, KU, etc. I doubt they can compete with BYU. I'm trying to figure out the reasonable expectations for MU in the New World.
Yes, MU can compete without recruiting the #1 player in the country, just as it has for the past 50 years.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 11:38:01 PMYes, MU can compete without recruiting the #1 player in the country, just as it has for the past 50 years.
But was MU competing with BYU or Utah for top players 50 years ago or 10 years ago? Is MU a top 25 payroll?
The question is.....Do we have any alumni with high 9 or 10 digits after their names....
7 digits is almost middle class these days...
Whatever happened to that Strong guy????
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 09, 2025, 11:19:17 PMAJ Dybantsa has a $7 million dollar nil deal. Can MU compete? Everyone seems fine with MU not being able to compete with Duke, UK, KU, etc. I doubt they can compete with BYU. I'm trying to figure out the reasonable expectations for MU in the New World.
BYU has five billionaire donors within a 20 mile radius of campus, and that does not include the the "cookie man" in Logan (a USU grad) who stepped up to keep Sitake from going to Penn State. BYU is an extreme example. Right now we're not keeping up with other Big East schools and seem to be falling behind Dayton and SLU.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 09, 2025, 07:00:52 PMI suspect if MU had someone come in with, hell, just a $100 million dollar donation for Men's Basketball, you may see a different approach. In the linked article Kansas got a $300 million donation, Illinois a $100M donation.
You can fantasize all you want and think MU has a bunch of mega wealthy alums that care about basketball, but the truth is as compared to Power 4 schools - yeah, not so much.
So, what we can do is brand ourselves as a place where you won't get recruited over, we will invest in you, and give you time to develop as a player and person. As the recruits quality increases (and it has with Nigel, Adrien, Sheek, Egbouno), maybe you can compete with Power 4 schools with payrolls of $20M and big time donors of $100M+.
Bucky fans in the 80s and early 90s: "we're not winning because our academic standards are too high."
Some MU fans today: "we're not winning and shouldn't expect to because we're poor. RVG forever!"
RVG has now become a brand, and whether it's working or not (with "not" the leader in the clubhouse) MU seems to be insistent on protecting the brand, considering the investment they've made into it based on the number of RVG products being pushed front and center in the Spirit Shop and online. Right now I expect Shaka and MU leadership to insist on dying on the RVG hill, using that like the "academic standards" BS Bucky and other schools used to run with.
God forbid they loosen up slightly on the "RVG" stuff and bring in one or two transfers. How would that make us look at a program and institution, especially with the President out pushing the RVG line as if it makes up a superior program?
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 10, 2025, 07:48:59 AMBucky fans in the 80s and early 90s: "we're not winning because our academic standards are too high."
Some MU fans today: "we're not winning and shouldn't expect to because we're poor. RVG forever!"
RVG has now become a brand, and whether it's working or not (with "not" the leader in the clubhouse) MU seems to be insistent on protecting the brand, considering the investment they've made into it based on the number of RVG products being pushed front and center in the Spirit Shop and online. Right now I expect Shaka and MU leadership to insist on dying on the RVG hill, using that like the "academic standards" BS Bucky and other schools used to run with.
God forbid they loosen up slightly on the "RVG" stuff and bring in one or two transfers. How would that make us look at a program and institution, especially with the President out pushing the RVG line as if it makes up a superior program?
Winning makes people forget quickly.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 09, 2025, 05:21:29 PMSo what you're saying is that Wojo was an elite recruiter.
Wojo could definitely recruit. If his coaching matched his recruiting, he'd probably still be here.
Quote from: SonOfWarrior on December 09, 2025, 08:45:41 PMThere's two sides to every coin. Say a kid gets a big NIL deal and he has a few bad games. He gets some pressure on the twitter and starts tanking hard. His money is gone next year and he's banished to DIII.
On the Marquette model you avoid the lightning in a bottle kid who is going to basically use Marquette until a true blue blood comes along or go to the NBA. Shaka is trying to have a stable roster with good timing across scholarship classes. Does that model look great right now? Sure doesn't. But this is a long term strategy. There is going to be growing pains. Is the RGV thing tacky? Sure it is. But look at the mission statement of Marquette. The BOT are focused on a balanced team. NO headlines in the Chicago Tribune about rape. Remember Buzz and the sexual assaults? You don't get a chance to really vet a player, meet his family, do the homework on the character of a player. If Winning was everything you get into the portal. If building a winning culture was everything you start at home and double down on development. Kids who come from families that value being a balanced and good human being will continue to choose Marquette. The trick is that they need to be 40% from the three point line.
100%. Hit some shots and we're 8-2. The freak-out factor would be chill
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 09, 2025, 11:47:02 PMBut was MU competing with BYU or Utah for top players 50 years ago or 10 years ago? Is MU a top 25 payroll?
What's with the BYU obsession? That's one program, and a unique one at that.
Like everyone else here, I don't have access to MU's books or know exactly how much money the athletic department has to spend on roster construction. But based on everything I've already written in this thread, I believe MU has the ability to acquire the resources needed to field a consistent winner on the basketball court. If they don't, it's not because the resources don't exist. It's because the program isn't capturing them.
Speaking of RGV, a not-so-flattering item about Shaka in Busting Brackets yesterday:
No. 2: Shaka Smart's approach to the transfer portal.
Marquette is bad and, right now, projects to be one of the worst teams in the Big East and, subsequently, one of the worst power-conference teams in the country, and it could all have been avoided. The Golden Eagles had a loaded roster last season that won a ton of games under head coach Shaka Smart; the only problem was that those players were seniors and out of eligibility. Well, coach Smart did what every other coach did: adapted to the rules and used the transfer portal with NIL to build a roster, right?
No, in fact, Coach Smart has made it clear how much he thinks the transfer portal is killing the game and how much he loathes it. If that were not enough, Coach Smart flat-out refuses to talk to any agents. I understand that agents can be frustrating to deal with, especially when trying to get the most money for their players, but that is the way of the college basketball world, especially for players that Marquette is going to be after.
As a result of the refusal of both of these key roster-building principles in the age of NIL, this Marquette team. It is one thing to stand on your principles, but when everyone else is playing within the rules and building a roster through the transfer portal, it's going to be either adapt or lose your job. If coach Smart doesn't start using the portal, Marquette might turn into DePaul, and then coach Smart will be out of a job, like it or not. This is how the game is building rosters.
https://bustingbrackets.com/shaka-smart-and-potential-tournament-in-dubai-lead-the-week-of-bad-beats-basketball
Quote from: Viper on December 10, 2025, 09:56:05 AM100%. Hit some shots and we're 8-2. The freak-out factor would be chill
Miss some shots and we're 3-7, with losses to Central Michigan and Valpo.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:09:26 AMMiss some shots and we're 3-7, with losses to Central Michigan and Valpo.
wrong. The only outcomes that would change are those games we won. That Valpo's best player left the game injured with 10 minutes to go with Valpo leading and controlling the pace was inconsequential.
C'mon, Scoopers. One of y'all must know this per$on ...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/mackenzie-scott-donates-7-2-billion-in-latest-giving-spree/ar-AA1S1Jqe?ocid=nl_article_link
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:08:10 AMSpeaking of RGV, a not-so-flattering item about Shaka in Busting Brackets yesterday:
No. 2: Shaka Smart's approach to the transfer portal.
Marquette is bad and, right now, projects to be one of the worst teams in the Big East and, subsequently, one of the worst power-conference teams in the country, and it could all have been avoided. The Golden Eagles had a loaded roster last season that won a ton of games under head coach Shaka Smart; the only problem was that those players were seniors and out of eligibility. Well, coach Smart did what every other coach did: adapted to the rules and used the transfer portal with NIL to build a roster, right?
No, in fact, Coach Smart has made it clear how much he thinks the transfer portal is killing the game and how much he loathes it. If that were not enough, Coach Smart flat-out refuses to talk to any agents. I understand that agents can be frustrating to deal with, especially when trying to get the most money for their players, but that is the way of the college basketball world, especially for players that Marquette is going to be after.
As a result of the refusal of both of these key roster-building principles in the age of NIL, this Marquette team. It is one thing to stand on your principles, but when everyone else is playing within the rules and building a roster through the transfer portal, it's going to be either adapt or lose your job. If coach Smart doesn't start using the portal, Marquette might turn into DePaul, and then coach Smart will be out of a job, like it or not. This is how the game is building rosters.
https://bustingbrackets.com/shaka-smart-and-potential-tournament-in-dubai-lead-the-week-of-bad-beats-basketball
Thanks for sharing.
Interesting times for men's MUBB.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:05:17 AMWhat's with the BYU obsession? That's one program, and a unique one at that.
Like everyone else here, I don't have access to MU's books or know exactly how much money the athletic department has to spend on roster construction. But based on everything I've already written in this thread, I believe MU has the ability to acquire the resources needed to field a consistent winner on the basketball court. If they don't, it's not because the resources don't exist. It's because the program isn't capturing them.
BYU is just an example of a program that came out of the blue to land a top talent and they likely will continue to land top talent because they have lots of money. I agree that MU has not been an elite destination for recruits since Al retired. MU has not competed for recruits with Duke, UNC, KU, UK, etc. and won't in the new era of paid players. What I'm trying to get a handle on is how MU's player payroll stacks up to other schools. Is it reasonable to expect MU to regularly outperform schools that pay more? BYU and Utah are examples of schools that MU has often been better than in the past but now look like they will be able to pay more.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 10:53:51 AMC'mon, Scoopers. One of y'all must know this per$on ...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/mackenzie-scott-donates-7-2-billion-in-latest-giving-spree/ar-AA1S1Jqe?ocid=nl_article_link
Considering Michigan got Larry Ellison to pony up $13 million for NIL because his latest wife is a UM grad, certainly someone here could land Mrs. Scott and convince her to donate a hefty sum to MU hoops.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:09:26 AMMiss some shots and we're 3-7, with losses to Central Michigan and Valpo.
im trying to think positive 😉
Quote from: Pakuni on December 10, 2025, 10:09:26 AMMiss some shots and we're 3-7, with losses to Central Michigan and Valpo.
Is a negative shooting % possible?
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 10, 2025, 01:07:18 PMIs a negative shooting % possible?
go 0-for and maybe make one for the other team?? 😂 akin to Jalen Hurts having two turnovers the other night on a single play!
Quote from: NCMUFan on December 10, 2025, 11:42:51 AMThanks for sharing.
Interesting times for men's MUBB.
Agree. Great article. Hopefully many more like it coming. For the first 15 minutes, it was cool that MU was different and resisting the new landscape (even though they've always taken transfers??). Now that everyone else has long since adjusted, no one cares or respects it anymore, it's no longer commendable, and we're just fading into irrelevance as a result.
Like has always been the case, MU can't compete for recruits with certain schools. Though it's inexcusable that the season has been a lost cause since before Thanksgiving and we're a lowly Q4 team that started 3 seniors and 2 third year players. I'm checked out on RGV and I'm for whatever it takes to get us out of it the fastest. I think the attendance numbers this year will show many feel the same way.
Quote from: Zog from Margo on December 10, 2025, 12:52:24 PMIs it reasonable to expect MU to regularly outperform schools that pay more? BYU and Utah are examples of schools that MU has often been better than in the past but now look like they will be able to pay more.
No, it's not reasonable to expect MU to
regularly outperform schools that pay more more. Just like it's never been reasonable to expect MU to regularly outperform Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. Some schools will always have resources and advantages that Marquette does not. This is not a new phenomena.
Likewise, it's not unreasonable to expect that Marquette regularly outperforms schools with lesser resources and is on par with programs with similar resources.
Again, none of us have access to MU's books, but there's no reason to believe the program is or needs to be in the poor house.
As a result of the refusal of both of these key roster-building principles in the age of NIL, this Marquette team. It is one thing to stand on your principles, but when everyone else is playing within the rules and building a roster through the transfer portal, it's going to be either adapt or lose your job. If coach Smart doesn't start using the portal, Marquette might turn into DePaul, and then coach Smart will be out of a job, like it or not. This is how the game is building rosters.[/i]
https://bustingbrackets.com/shaka-smart-and-potential-tournament-in-dubai-lead-the-week-of-bad-beats-basketball
[/quote]
Agree Dislike NIL but it is a reality
Quote from: Biggie Clausen on December 09, 2025, 09:57:33 PMTrue, although Henry and Joey already had brothers in the program at Marquette, so I'd argue they were special cases. Then again, I forgot that Greg Elliott - at least according to some Scoopers - was Izzo's top target in that year's recruiting class, and possibly - again, according to some Scoopers at that time - the most coveted recruit of Izzo's entire career. That's just how it was in the Wojo era.
Markus chose us over Indiana, Baylor, and Arizona. While not Duke MSU etc it seems worth mentioning.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 10, 2025, 03:50:51 PMMarkus chose us over Indiana, Baylor, and Arizona. While not Duke MSU etc it seems worth mentioning.
Wojo always gets his man.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on December 10, 2025, 03:50:51 PMMarkus chose us over Indiana, Baylor, and Arizona. While not Duke MSU etc it seems worth mentioning.
And Oso chose Marquette over Shaka/Texas, though Shaka successfully re-recruited him for Marquette.
Quote from: panda on December 09, 2025, 09:01:30 PMWhat I get from this is transfer students are criminals
Shaka doesn't want glue sniffers.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 06:39:04 PMAnd Oso chose Marquette over Shaka/Texas, though Shaka successfully re-recruited him for Marquette.
Yeah, and Steve Novak chose MU over Illinois and Florida. But I never mentioned Illinois and Florida in my original post, and I didn't mention Indiana or Texas, either.
Yes, Joey and Henry chose MU over MSU and whatever other blue bloods were after them. But those guys were special, and very similar, cases. Using those two as the only examples of a guy picking a blue blood over Marquette is like saying Sofia Coppola must be a great actress because she got a lead role in The Godfather III.
Quote from: Biggie Clausen on December 10, 2025, 08:52:10 PMYeah, and Steve Novak chose MU over Illinois and Florida. But I never mentioned Illinois and Florida in my original post, and I didn't mention Indiana or Texas, either.
Yes, Joey and Henry chose MU over MSU and whatever other blue bloods were after them. But those guys were special, and very similar, cases. Using those two as the only examples of a guy picking a blue blood over Marquette is like saying Sofia Coppola must be a great actress because she got a lead role in The Godfather III.
You were wrong, but that's ok. It happens to all of us.
Quote from: MU82 on December 10, 2025, 09:59:20 PMYou were wrong, but that's ok. It happens to all of us.
And like most Scoopers, when wrong he chose to move goalposts / change arguments! #TrueScooper
Quote from: Jay Bee on December 11, 2025, 02:24:13 AMAnd like most Scoopers, when wrong he chose to move goalposts / change arguments! #TrueScooper
Okay, sure, I was wrong. There. For the next step in my Scoop journey, I plan to litter the board with dreadfully stale and unfunny bits. You'd be the perfect guy to give me guidance on that.
The reason RGV isn't working is twofold.
First, we haven't seen growth into star level players from the current sophomore/junior classes like we got from Justin Lewis, Oso Ighodaro, and Kam Jones. Worse, while we do have one star in Chase, you need 2-3 guys like that anchored by back end starters/bench players on par with Stevie Mitchell & David Joplin. We maybe have two of those in Zaide & Ben, but neither are consistently giving that level of play.
If the Growth doesn't come, the talent evaluation needs to be on point and in an era where pay for play is a reality, you need to identify & pay for the Matthew Hodge, Oswin Erhunwumse, Cam Ward, Amari Allen, & Jamarion Batemon types that we were involved with but ultimately didn't land. Next year, will that be Lucas Morillo we're saying that about?
Bottom line, the staff failed. They misidentified talent and didn't Grow it enough to be front line contributors. As a result we're staring down the barrel of possibly the worst Marquette team in more than 3 decades. And based on what we've seen from the current roster, it feels awfully unlikely that we're going to Grow out of this next year without Chase & Ben.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 11, 2025, 10:41:01 AMThe reason RGV isn't working is twofold.
First, we haven't seen growth into star level players from the current sophomore/junior classes like we got from Justin Lewis, Oso Ighodaro, and Kam Jones. Worse, while we do have one star in Chase, you need 2-3 guys like that anchored by back end starters/bench players on par with Stevie Mitchell & David Joplin. We maybe have two of those in Zaide & Ben, but neither are consistently giving that level of play.
If the Growth doesn't come, the talent evaluation needs to be on point and in an era where pay for play is a reality, you need to identify & pay for the Matthew Hodge, Oswin Erhunwumse, Cam Ward, Amari Allen, & Jamarion Batemon types that we were involved with but ultimately didn't land. Next year, will that be Lucas Morillo we're saying that about?
Bottom line, the staff failed. They misidentified talent and didn't Grow it enough to be front line contributors. As a result we're starting down the barrel of possibly the worst Marquette team in more than 3 decades. And based on what we've seen from the current roster, it feels awfully unlikely that we're going to Grow out of this next year without Chase & Ben.
I don't think Shaka has to change his ways too drastically but next year might be a year he needs to use the portal to avoid a repeat. And then after next year he can go right back to not using it.
But when it goes sideways you gotta switch it up. Similar to his first year. Use the portal to add the necessary talent and then fallback on RGV but without missing on talent in HS recruiting.
Quote from: GoldenEagles03 on December 11, 2025, 10:44:45 AMI don't think Shaka has to change his ways too drastically but next year
How? Who is good on this roster? The two best players are still the seniors.
Who do you trust from this team to start next year on a team that will make the tournament?
This is just an incorrect assessment. Shaka needs to blow this roster up for his staff to still have jobs.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow? Who is good on this roster? The two best players are still the seniors.
Who do you trust from this team to start next year on a team that will make the tournament?
This is just an incorrect assessment. Shaka needs to blow this roster up for his staff to still have jobs.
Did you even read?
I think he has to use the portal next year to help the talent deficit.
Nigel, Stevens, Zaide, Royce those are good players. They need more.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow? Who is good on this roster? The two best players are still the seniors.
Who do you trust from this team to start next year on a team that will make the tournament?
This is just an incorrect assessment. Shaka needs to blow this roster up for his staff to still have jobs.
There is no way for one to rate Ben Gold as one of the two best players. I like Ben and have heard how popular he is with students on campus because of being a friendly and outgoing guy, but come on.
Nigel James has established himself as the #2 on the roster. He's a building block, and there are others who are potentially as well, so while I don't see a reason to "blow up the roster," there does need to be a change in its construction and honest conversations held with some of those with eligibility remaining.
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 11, 2025, 11:06:15 AMThere is no way for one to rate Ben Gold as one of the two best players. I like Ben and have heard how popular he is with students on campus because of being a friendly and outgoing guy, but come on.
Nigel James has established himself as the #2 on the roster. He's a building block, and there are others who are potentially as well, so while I don't see a reason to "blow up the roster," there does need to be a change in its construction and honest conversations held with some of those with eligibility remaining.
Ben is one of the 3 most indispensable players on this roster. I would agree Nigel is one of the three as well.
Hoping to say that about two more (RP and AS) in the next couple of weeks if they can progress and be more consistent.
Ok. So Gold is in the top 3. But ...
If SS does not go to the portal
( and I don't think that he will ), then how is this team not just as bad or
Worse next year ?
And guess what... James will have lots of suitors after the season. $hit, he probably has people sniffing around already. So, if he likes V better than the RG, then... uhh ...
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 11, 2025, 11:06:15 AMNigel James has established himself as the #2 on the roster. He's a building block, and there are others who are potentially as well, so while I don't see a reason to "blow up the roster," there does need to be a change in its construction and honest conversations held with some of those with eligibility remaining.
Dumb anti this take stat of the day, Nigel James is +16 well Caedin Hamilton is +26.
I would like to see Nigel defend anyone before I say "he must stay". He is largly worse than freshman year Kam Jones who was a activly bad defender, but unlike Jones, James's offensive prowess isn't as sustainable for the future. His is shooting is Meh at best. He currently over dribbles and plays like a guard who wants to gain stats instead win. I would feel much more comforatble with him long term if he simply played less and learned more.
James is in the middle of the pack for creative freshman guards so far. He would be behind Kingston Flemings, Mikel Brown Jr., Mario Saint-Supery, Chance Mallory, Either Arkansas Guard, Acaden Lewis, Ebuka Okorie, Aiden Argabright, Azavier Robinson, and we watched Rakim Chaney outplay him for Valpo.
Quote from: GoldenEagles03 on December 11, 2025, 11:03:55 AMNigel, Stevens, Zaide, Royce those are good players. They need more.
Maybe (freshman guard with quesitonable defense), Maybe( freshman guard with quesitonable defense and limited creativity), No (junior guard with limited creativity who is playing so poorly he was benched for stevens), Maybe (he was good last year but he can't shoot, bad from FT line and 3point land).
Quote from: Billy Hoyle on December 11, 2025, 11:06:15 AMThere is no way for one to rate Ben Gold as one of the two best players.
BPR rates Ben at #40 in the Big East. He's second on the team and far ahead of team fifth and Big East #79 NJ.
Offensively, Ben is better from 2, better from 3, better eFG%, and turns it over less.
Defensively, Ben is a better positional defender, and while NJ generates turnovers, he's often a feast or famine player, taking himself out of position when he doesn't get the steal.
I like NJ. He has the higher long term ceiling, and you can even find metrics like PORPAGATU! that like him better than Ben, but that's largely an offense only metric that doesn't factor in the areas NJ is comparably weakest.
You can make a case for NJ, and in the long term he's the higher value asset, but not only is there not "no way" to rate Ben higher at the moment, but you have to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to put anyone other than Ben second to Chase. We have one guy (Chase) who would be a starter on any team in the league, one guy (Ben) who would start on most teams in the league, and the rest are role players who would be bench players pretty much anywhere else. And NJ, FBOW, is one of those because he isn't a fully formed two way player yet.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 10:51:35 AMHow? Who is good on this roster? The two best players are still the seniors.
Who do you trust from this team to start next year on a team that will make the tournament?
This is just an incorrect assessment. Shaka needs to blow this roster up for his staff to still have jobs.
This is hyperbole.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on December 11, 2025, 01:34:49 PMThis is hyperbole.
Mildly.
Saying we have good players is also "hyperbolic"
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 01:45:50 PMMildly.
Saying we have good players is also "hyperbolic"
I can see any of Lowery, Parham, James, Stevens, and Phillips being significant contributors on a tourney team next season.
Would I be overly confident in that? No. I just don't see the need to "tear it all down".
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on December 11, 2025, 01:56:02 PMI can see any of Lowery, Parham, James, Stevens, and Phillips being significant contributors on a tourney team next season.
Would I be overly confident in that? No. I just don't see the need to "tear it all down".
We're going to get a lot more out of Sheek Pearson than people think, as well.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 01:45:50 PMMildly.
Saying we have good players is also "hyperbolic"
Seriously, how many players do you think "have to go"? Which ones are you suggesting Shaka cut after the season?
Quote from: Hards Alumni on December 11, 2025, 02:00:09 PMWe're going to get a lot more out of Sheek Pearson than people think, as well.
That wouldn't surprise me at all, nor would getting contributions from Egbuonu but I didn't include guys who haven't played for us yet.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 01:45:50 PMMildly.
Saying we have good players is also "hyperbolic"
The outlook for next year looks bleak as well, with no significant transfers coming in.
In what world does one of the worst high major teams one year turn into a good team the following year by adding a couple of freshmen?
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:17:57 PMThe outlook for next year looks bleak as well, with no significant transfers coming in.
In what world does one of the worst high major teams one year turn into a good team the following year by adding a couple of freshmen?
yawn
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:17:57 PMThe outlook for next year looks bleak as well, with no significant transfers coming in.
In what world does one of the worst high major teams one year turn into a good team the following year by adding a couple of freshmen?
Rutgers were so good with Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 02:20:45 PMRutgers were so good with Dylan Harper and Ace Bailey
How many top 5 picks do we have coming into the program next year?
Quote from: Hards Alumni on December 11, 2025, 02:20:21 PMyawn
Care to entertain an answer to my question or will you sarcastically dismiss it with no substance?
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:25:46 PMCare to entertain an answer to my question or will you sarcastically dismiss it with no substance?
It's December 11th. Let the season play out, and then let the offseason as well.
Unless you're very sure of everything that will happen before October 2026.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 02:04:06 PMSeriously, how many players do you think "have to go"? Which ones are you suggesting Shaka cut after the season?
For me personally. If I was a basketball czar. Or if I were a new coach.
I would group the team like this.
Show the door- Caedin, Damarius, Tre, Sean.
Perfectly fine with them leaving. Josh, Ian, Sheek, Adrien, Michael, Zaide.
Mildly fine with them leaving. Royce and Nigel.
This roster has players that will be good and start some day, they just should be juniors or seniors when that happens.
My hope is that 1-2 guys flash late. But I have my doubts that they will.
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:17:57 PMThe outlook for next year looks bleak as well, with no significant transfers coming in.
In what world does one of the worst high major teams one year turn into a good team the following year by adding a couple of freshmen?
This is moving the goalposts. I don't think anyone has said a couple of significant transfers aren't needed.
The point is that a complete annihilation of the current roster isn't necessary if there are a couple of nice additions through the portal.
For example:
-Starting center (portal)
-Starting wing (portal)
-Zaide
-Adrien
-Nigel
-Royce
-Sheek
-Egbuonu
-Phillips
I can see such a hypothetical 9-man group being a tourney team
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 02:30:33 PMPerfectly fine with them leaving. Josh, Ian, Sheek, Adrien, Michael, Zaide.
To me, this is ludicrous.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on December 11, 2025, 02:00:09 PMWe're going to get a lot more out of Sheek Pearson than people think, as well.
This. Sheek was a top 60ish recruit for a reason. Completely different than the late fliers at the 5 Shaka signed in previous classes. He was awesome in the EYBL, not massive box score numbers but he makes so many winning plays.
Quote from: Mu8891 on December 11, 2025, 11:42:08 AMOk. So Gold is in the top 3. But ...
If SS does not go to the portal
( and I don't think that he will ), then how is this team not just as bad or
Worse next year ?
And guess what... James will have lots of suitors after the season. $hit, he probably has people sniffing around already. So, if he likes V better than the RG, then... uhh ...
That is the problem with this down of a season. No one anticipated lower mid major badness. Things could fall apart like a RGV house of cards but I really hope Shaka has forged enough of a good relationship with his best players that they stay. Obviously the money will have to match. Shaka definitely made it harder on himself by missing on his talent evaluations in the sophomore and junior classes. I have faith he will learn from his mistakes and get the team out of this mess.
Nigel - ??
Stevens - ??/Zaide
?? - Phillips
Royce - Egbuonu
?? - Sheek/Clark
I'd feel good about the above lineup next year. The ??'s are where I'd add a legit, experienced transfer.
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:17:57 PMThe outlook for next year looks bleak as well, with no significant transfers coming in.
In what world does one of the worst high major teams one year turn into a good team the following year by adding a couple of freshmen?
Marquette went from 7-9 in CUSA and KenPom #98 in 2004-05 to 10-6 in the Big East and KenPom #36 in 2005-6.
But the three amigos probably aren't walking through that door.
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2025, 02:39:35 PMMarquette went from 7-9 in CUSA and KenPom #98 in 2004-05 to 10-6 in the Big East and KenPom #36 in 2005-6.
But the three amigos probably aren't walking through that door.
Heck they might be ! There are some talented kids coming into the program but there sure as heck isn't a Steve Novak on this roster to carry them. This current team is so devoid of bonafide high major talent that there isn't much to look forward to with a few freshmen coming in next year.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on December 11, 2025, 02:27:54 PMIt's December 11th. Let the season play out, and then let the offseason as well.
Unless you're very sure of everything that will happen before October 2026.
What do you see happening between now and then that would drastically change the outlook of this team for 2026?
Quote from: Pakuni on December 11, 2025, 02:39:35 PMMarquette went from 7-9 in CUSA and KenPom #98 in 2004-05 to 10-6 in the Big East and KenPom #36 in 2005-6.
But the three amigos probably aren't walking through that door.
Yes agree it was mostly the Amigos and they are not walking through that door. But our Big East affiliation helped some also. And our relationships with UCONN and ND behind the scenes helped a little too as Marquette made the Big Dance the next 8 years in a row.
Until ND and UCONN left the Big East after 2013. ND and UCONN basketball like Marquette Basketball fell after UCONN's title in 2014. Both Marquette and UCONN regained strength after UCONN rejoined the BIG East for the 2021 season and Shaka took the job this time.
Am worried Saint John's might have become better friends with UCONN since they control Madison Square Garden for the Big East Tournament and have a new big donor.
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:48:41 PMWhat do you see happening between now and then that would drastically change the outlook of this team for 2026?
My point is you can't know what the rest of the year and off season bring so consider patience.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 02:30:33 PMFor me personally. If I was a basketball czar. Or if I were a new coach.
I would group the team like this.
Show the door- Caedin, Damarius, Tre, Sean.
Perfectly fine with them leaving. Josh, Ian, Sheek, Adrien, Michael, Zaide.
Mildly fine with them leaving. Royce and Nigel.
This roster has players that will be good and start some day, they just should be juniors or seniors when that happens.
My hope is that 1-2 guys flash late. But I have my doubts that they will.
Thank Christ you're not.
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 02:30:33 PMFor me personally. If I was a basketball czar. Or if I were a new coach.
I would group the team like this.
Show the door- Caedin, Damarius, Tre, Sean.
Perfectly fine with them leaving. Josh, Ian, Sheek, Adrien, Michael, Zaide.
Mildly fine with them leaving. Royce and Nigel.
This roster has players that will be good and start some day, they just should be juniors or seniors when that happens.
My hope is that 1-2 guys flash late. But I have my doubts that they will.
I asked a serious question, and you provided a serious answer, so I appreciate that.
I disagree with much of what you're saying, but I'll leave it alone. Have a good one.
Quote from: Hards Alumni on December 11, 2025, 02:54:50 PMMy point is you can't know what the rest of the year and off season bring so consider patience.
Why respond to my posts if that is your answer? No one here is a fortune teller. We're giving our opinions. If that is your opinion, deactivate until next season.
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:58:16 PMWhy respond to my posts if that is your answer? No one here is a fortune teller. We're giving our opinions. If that is your opinion, deactivate until next season.
Your opinion is yours, its just dumb to complain about a team whose roster isn't even set until next year. We don't need any more little willies around here.
Quote from: MU82 on December 11, 2025, 02:56:38 PMI asked a serious question, and you provided a serious answer, so I appreciate that.
I disagree with much of what you're saying, but I'll leave it alone. Have a good one.
And I can look really bad for saying all that. Because the truth is all of these guys are very young. And the roster is too young.
Which is probably my biggest gripe with the whole operation right now
Quote from: jfp61 on December 11, 2025, 03:09:28 PMAnd I can look really bad for saying all that. Because the truth is all of these guys are very young. And the roster is too young.
Which is probably my biggest gripe with the whole operation right now
Agree - When you miss on a couple of classes in a row adding talented freshmen is great but our competition is adding players with existing successful NCAA pedigrees.
I feel like if everyone on the team makes 10,000 hook shots over the summer - and not just one guy - we can compete for a natty.
Quote from: panda on December 11, 2025, 02:48:41 PMWhat do you see happening between now and then that would drastically change the outlook of this team for 2026?
You should probably just quit being a fan from now until 2027, or Shaka is fired. Clearly, Shaka is clueless, guys never improve, and its impossible that any of the redshirt freshman, and true freshman next year bring anything to the table. We are screwed.
Quote from: Elonsmusk on December 11, 2025, 07:21:40 PMYou should probably just quit being a fan from now until 2027, or Shaka is fired. Clearly, Shaka is clueless, guys never improve, and its impossible that any of the redshirt freshman, and true freshman next year bring anything to the table. We are screwed.
I'm still going to watch the games, root for my favorite team and hope they prove me wrong.
I can also realistically look at this roster, the expected roster for next year and make a prediction based on their current performance levels and what I believe is their potential.
I don't need to put blinders on and keep telling myself everything is going to be ok when there is absolutely no factual basis behind that. I also know freshmen, no matter how highly ranked, are freshmen and if we're relying on them to perform next year to take a leap, we're still in big trouble.